AoS Tabling your Opponent

[Hu3pfka3s3]

So i was wondering if this is actually possible in Age of Sigmar to win, if you table someone? Cause i have never read something like this.

 

[Aginor]

Sure. Even if you play battleplans, if you kill most if your opponent's army them he will not be able to do anything against you and will most likely give up.
I think that counts as tabling.

 

[Killer Angel]

Yep, total wipeout of an army means immediate victory. It should be specified in the scenario if it's different.


(edit: not true, see post n. 10)

 

[Hu3pfka3s3]

But i can't find a passage in the rulebook that says so. And in the scenarios too, no sentence about a total wipe out of the enemy. Otherwise in 40k there is an extra passage about it :/

 

[Killer Angel]

In the general rules (the famous 4 pages), the Minor Victory conditions for AoS, come into play "if it has not been possible to fight a battle to its conclusion or the outcome is not obvious".
If you table your opponent, you cannot fight a battle to its conclusion, so you score a minor victory.

At least, that's my take on the matter.



EDIT: at most, you could argue that if you table your opponent on say turn 3 you could play out turns 4 and 5 to see if you can get to any objectives to score victory points.
If this is not possible (for example, you have no heroes in the "three places of power" scenario), you should be able to score a minor victory


(edit: not true, see post n. 10)

 

[Hu3pfka3s3]

But what if the score is like 20:0 for the enemy. There is no passage that i win this battle even if i wipe him out.

 

[Killer Angel]

But what if the score is like 20:0 for the enemy. There is no passage that i win this battle even if i wipe him out.

The enemy would score a major victory (by points), BUT if you wipe its army, then "it has not been possible to fight a battle to its conclusion" (the fifth turn), so you win a minor victory


imo this is the most logical interpretation.


(edit: not true, see post n. 10)

 

[Killer Angel]

OK, I'm re-reading the whole thing, and now I'm not so sure.

1) The general rules says that you score a Major Victory if there are no enemy models on the field of battle.

2) The rules for scenarios with victory points tell that you don't apply the rules for victory listed in the general rules, so the one above is not valid.

3) The part about the Minor VIctory "if it has not been possible to fight a battle to its conclusion" is still in the general rule, so also that one shouldn't be valid.


mmm... i need more research.

 

[LordRibbit]

The way we play it in our group is you play the full 5 turns even if one player is wiped out. If the remaining player can't catch up on vp's then they lose as the mission requirements haven't been met by him

 

[Killer Angel]

FOUND IT!

and it appears I was wrong.


GENERAL’S HANDBOOK

Official FAQs and errata, Version 1.1


Q: Do the victory conditions on the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules sheet apply in Pitched Battles? For example, do you win a major victory if you wipe out the opposing army?

A: No to both questions.

 

[Hu3pfka3s3]

Well i asked the same question on facebook, looks like i am right and you cant win if you table someone and cant catch up in points till turn 5.

 

[Canas]

FOUND IT!

and it appears I was wrong.


GENERAL’S HANDBOOK

Official FAQs and errata, Version 1.1


Q: Do the victory conditions on the Warhammer Age of Sigmar rules sheet apply in Pitched Battles? For example, do you win a major victory if you wipe out the opposing army?

A: No to both questions.

well that's kinda stupid... Most victory conditions should default to you win if you wipe out the enemy by simple logic..

• Enemy's channeling a big bad spell of doom? Wiping them out stops em, you win.
• You're channeling a big bad spell of doom? Wiping them out gives you all the time you need, you win.
• Any variation of king of the hill? Wiping them out means they can't hold the hill, provided you have 1 guy left you win as you're holding it by default, you win.
• Stealing the artifact? Wiping them out means they can't steal it, or that you can just walk away with it if you're stealing it. You win.

There's only 2 objectives that I can think of for which it'd make some sense, "gain X point/objective held/turn" and "get X models to Y before the end of the game", and both of those only work if the scenario gives a clear reason as to why victory points are limited or why the time limit exists beyond just "well the rules say it does". E.g. saying that holding the objective gives you 1 artifact/turn and whoever has the most wins doesn't really explain why wiping the enemy out doesn't mean you can just pick up their artifacts, or why you can't just stand around however long you need to get more artifacts/points... similarly, a breakthrough mission where you have to get X units to a certain zone doesn't really explain why that needs to be done in 6 turns other than that's just how long a game lasts... Plus, even in those cases there probably should be some intereaction with the victory conditions for entirely wiping out the enemy.

 

[Killer Angel]

well that's kinda stupid...

I could agree on that

 

[Aginor]

I could agree on that

Actually I disagree this time!

Take the following example: Who won the Battle of Thermopylae, Xerxes or the Spartans? The 300 Spartans managed to hold the Persians there for two days, allowing the other Greek states to gather their troops and eventually beat the Persians in the later battle.
The 300 were wiped out but you might say they scored so many victory points by holding the objective that they won the battle.

EDIT: Talking about the legends / comic / movie version of course. The real life battle was... really different.

 

[Killer Angel]

I get the reasoning and i agree with the principle... however this is the only game i know where to wipe out an opponent doesn't grant victory . And it's kinda weird

 

[Canas]

Actually I disagree this time!

Take the following example: Who won the Battle of Thermopylae, Xerxes or the Spartans? The 300 Spartans managed to hold the Persians there for two days, allowing the other Greek states to gather their troops and eventually beat the Persians in the later battle.
The 300 were wiped out but you might say they scored so many victory points by holding the objective that they won the battle.

EDIT: Talking about the legends / comic / movie version of course. The real life battle was... really different.

That battle, both in real life and in the comics, has a clearly stated reason as to why there is a time limit and why it was important that the persians got stuck for so long. This works cuz the battle isn't fought in a vacuum. There isn't just thermopylea, there's thermopylea while the city states are being organised. However, in most of the games there is just the one game in a vacuum, there isn't a "logical" reason for the time limit to exist other than "cuz the rules say so". In narrative-gameplay it would work better as you could give a reason for the time limit.

Also, minor sidenote, apart from narrative scenario's from tomes and starting boxes that literally state what to field, do these battleplans actually come with unequal forces like the persians and the spartans? Where one will inevitably destroy the other given enough time? Cuz I can't remember any of that sort, and the moment the forces are equal, which in matched play they tend to be, arbitrary time limits become even more arbitrary and illogical. A small force of spartans being annihilated by a massive force of persians but buying time for the main greek force to mobilize is a "major" victory for the spartans, on the other hand if there were just as many spartans as persians it'd be a very phyrric victory indeed...

 

[Aginor]

Yeah games are weird. Of course single battles are always isolated. That's what I kinda like about campaigns.

As for your question: I think there are some asymmetrical battleplans in Battletomes. IIRC the Ironjawz Battletome for example has a narrative battle that is almost impossible to win but you only need to survive for some time.
In the Sylvaneth Battletome there are also some battleplans, and like many narrative battleplans the balance is a bit skewed in favour of the army the Battletome belongs to. Not sure about inevitable wins though.

Oh and for the record: in all historical sources I know of, the Battle of Thermopylae is of course recorded as victory for the Persians despite its outcome which enabled the campaign to be won by the Greeks.

 

[Tokek]

Actually I disagree this time!

Take the following example: Who won the Battle of Thermopylae, Xerxes or the Spartans? The 300 Spartans managed to hold the Persians there for two days, allowing the other Greek states to gather their troops and eventually beat the Persians in the later battle.
The 300 were wiped out but you might say they scored so many victory points by holding the objective that they won the battle.

EDIT: Talking about the legends / comic / movie version of course. The real life battle was... really different.

The battle for Thermopylae was a tactical and strategic victory for the Persians but far from a decisive one. Under cover of the rearguard the Greeks withdrew, abandoning some of their cities to destruction, to avoid a more decisive defeat. The inability of the Persians to force a decisive battle was strategically disastrous for them. Had the Greeks held the mountain path (which they knew of and had sent a force to defend) they could possibly have forced a decisive defeat on the Persians by holding out until the food and water of the invading army was exhausted.

The battle was a propaganda victory for the Greeks which eventually enabled them to rally their forces, at which point they forced a decisive battle which they won. The film reflects the propaganda

In a narrative battle based based on this the result should probably be recorded as a marginal Persian victory. Due to the strategic considerations it was quite possible for the Greek forces on the ground to be wiped out while gaining a strategic victory. e.g Had they held out for a while longer the invading army would have been desperate for resupply - forcing their supporting fleet into a weak position where they could be trapped and destroyed in shallow waters by the Athenian fleet. So far as we can tell that was the Greek strategic plan and that could be represented in a narrative game by the Greek side winning if they hold out for a few more turns.

In a campaign game it should be a Persian victory that gains them little or nothing in later games.

 

[Canas]

Yeah games are weird. Of course single battles are always isolated. That's what I kinda like about campaigns.

As for your question: I think there are some asymmetrical battleplans in Battletomes. IIRC the Ironjawz Battletome for example has a narrative battle that is almost impossible to win but you only need to survive for some time.
In the Sylvaneth Battletome there are also some battleplans, and like many narrative battleplans the balance is a bit skewed in favour of the army the Battletome belongs to. Not sure about inevitable wins though.

Oh and for the record: in all historical sources I know of, the Battle of Thermopylae is of course recorded as victory for the Persians despite its outcome which enabled the campaign to be won by the Greeks.

Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant battleplans used in matched play, not just narrative play.

Lost the battle, but won the war essentially with the lost battle being one of the important bits that eventually won the war.

And yeah, games will Always be weird, but this might be one of the weirder victory conditions. I think it might just be the combination of tabling an opponent being nigh irrelevant with an arbitrary time limit. Had the time limit only existed with objectives where it makes sense then it'd not be so weird.

 

[Killer Angel]

By RAW, when playing scenarios in pitched battles you have to look only at objective points, so to wipe out the opponents means nothing. In absence of different decisions, this should be the correct answer to keep in mind when playing official tournaments

By common thinking, if I slay your army and you cannot continue the game, you should lose.

Both things have something that support the logic and the the reasoning behind them, and we have plenty of examples (historical and fictional) where you "win" even if you have been wiped out (Alamo, Thermopylae, SW Rogue One).
So, a loss in the field may be a victory in the long run... but it still remains a loss on the field in that particular battle.

It all boils down to "Do we wanna assign more importance to VPs or not being tabled out, because frankly if you cannot play you lose?"

In the first case, if you win a major victory by VPs but are wiped out, it's only a minor victory.
In the second one, if I wipe out the enemy but I'm not able to win also by VPs, it's only a minor victory.

Major victories should be gained only by victory points AND by still having something on the battlefield.


Fluff example:
Death Allegiance and SCE are battling over the city of Doomygloom, the objectives represent arks of souls that both Sigmar and Nagash want to claim.
Death Allegiance wipes out SCE, but SCE wins by points (they gave freedom to souls before succumbing to undead force).
Grand Moff Vlad the Cruel reports to Nagash: "A great victory, my Lord. The city of Doomygloom is in our hands!"
Nagash: "Good job Vlad. Where are my souls?"